Edit: I've been to a few funerals myself. The best painkiller in times of despair is spontaneous happiness from the people around you, its something special when strangers join together in a fun activity for no reason at all.

Or the cast of the Lion King musical who think breaking out into song in real life is cute and fun. Normally I would just get up and leave wherever they were but that becomes difficult when you're on a plane. Just shut up so we can get to where we're going in peace.

If you can get it melty it's pretty good. Grilled cheese, cheeseburger (except for this one of course), etc. If you're putting it cold on deli sandwiches or something it's not too great. But it's cheap, so there's that.

Are you aware that establishing gender quotas for Boards is a very relevant and increasingly popular practice in the corporate world?

I have yet to meet someone who is actual in a recruitment field as I am, or who actually has some qualifications to speak on this subject matter, present this 'meritocracy' stance for this.... it's all clearly bandwagon folks who think it makes sense.

There are actually many good reasons to not set diversity policies... I've yet to see one presented here for this specific example.

I actually don't understand the benefits of having diversity policies based on gender, could you explain to me why it is better than hiring people based on their skill? Other than the fact that in politics that gender's issues might be better represented by having equality of gender, though in theory if the person is the best at their job that shouldn't matter.

Also, where would the cutoff be? If 1% of Canada's population is gay, should we have a couple gay people in the cabinet? What about a couple people who identify as gender neutral? One who is a meth smoker? It seems like it would never really end.

edit: okay people, downvote if you like, but I'd still like an explanation... Everyone is just saying "No one understands why this is a good thing!" but doesn't explain.

I'm not saying anything about the health effects or toxicity or anything, and you are right to state that there are people behind the scenes who would try to affect the notion that sugar causes hyperactivity among other things because of financial and societal reasons, so of course it's good to take studies with a 'grain of sugar' as it were haha. But it seems when it comes to sugar and it's effects on hyperactivity and cognition, the leading factor is the fact that people expect it to have these effects and therefore are more inclined to judge and blame their behavior on sugars.

I mean, contemporary medicine isn't the issue. It's more economic and political hands reaching in to effect the studies and results of the studies, but that really depends on many factors. Overall, contemporary medicine is more effective than placebo effects derived from such things as homeopathy. Herbal medicine is excluded, because certain herbal effects have been proven by contemporary science so I don't mean to come off as bashing other alternatives. Indeed, the placebo effect is quite profound and can have a huge effect on the human brain, so it has a power in itself as well.

Edit: Guys, downvote all you want but I'd prefer if you at least refuted my claims with studies. I have nothing to gain by trying to prove to you guys that the 'sugar-hyperactivity myth' is false, I'm just being real... Stop believing something just because you've been told it your whole life.

I mean, I don't think the istick is good but saying 'can WE quit suggesting' is kinda weird. As much as people like to think reddit is a hive mind, every individual person is different. Some suggest it and haven't had problems, and some really don't like it and have had huge problems.

While it makes sense that the police would try to disperse an angry crowd that is out after dark(it is harder to control and keep people safe when you can't see them after all), the actual police response is excessive, and fairly alarming...its like martial law went into effect and they forgot to tell anyone about it.

I don't know anything personally about the situation, but from what I saw in the video (throwing glass bottles) and heard from people (rioting, looting, etc.), responding with tear gas and rubber bullets doesn't seem at all excessive.

A glass bottle to the head is easily more excessive. People saying "well, that was just one person"... well too bad, that one person decided to be violent and the police will respond the only way they can.

First off, calm the fuck down. You are getting angry over nothing, and shoving words into my mouth that I hadn't even said, while ignoring the context of this entire thread.

Second off, I wasn't talking about quality products. This 200,000 dollar watch is not of 200,000$ quality, and you cannot argue that point.

I bought a $20 painting because I fucking liked it.

I'm sorry if you didn't understand that I wasn't talking about cheap art, I've edited my comment to say expensive art. I don't see how anyone would argue that a $20 painting is a fuck you to the poor, so im sorry if for some odd reason you concluded this.

I bought a DeWalt mitre saw over a shitty Porter Cable saw because it's better quality... I really doubt you buy bottom of the line shit quality items and live in the smallest house you can function in then send all the money you saved to poor people.

Yes, thats nice. I got a Makita drill because I wanted quality. But would you buy a $30,000, diamond coated drill, one of only 50 in the world? I highly doubt it. I never argued that people had to buy bottom of the line stuff, I don't see why you have to put words into my mouth, so to speak. I'm talking about things that are grossly overpriced just because it is 'unique' or has a high end brand name attached.

I'm not saying you have to buy a $1000 car and drive around giving your money to the poor. I'm talking about people who have hundreds of millions of dollars. People buying Ferraris and Lambos that cant even get over speed bumps, and driving around the neighbourhood a few times just to show it off. I'm talking about people buying a 200,000 dollar watch.
How the fuck can you argue that people buying these things worth hundreds of thousands of dollars are not buying it to show off (aka feel superior)? How can you argue that the guy in my neighborhood that drives his Maserati around the block just for shits, top down, blasting music, revving his engine at anyone that looks his way is doing it for personal enjoyment over showing off?

If you honestly think that what I'm saying is wrong, you are a very ignorant person. To be perfectly honest, your comment shows me that you didn't even try to understand what I was talking about; the whole thing is arguing something I didn't even say, and assuming things that I didn't even say. Additionally, saying "fuck you asshole" doesn't drive your point home any better.

Edit: Just figured I'd add that this doesn't apply to every vastly wealthy person.

Edit: I'd also like to add something. If someone needs to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a flashy item like this watch just to feel good, that person isn't going to be happy in life. Moreover, that person has issues with their self-confidence, and is buying that flashy, overpriced item in an attempt to make himself superior to others, thereby increasing his confidence. I challenge you to think about the psychology behind people's motives, rather than just looking at the surface.

And since when has that been against any rules on reddit? I´m not claiming this my own. Under the please don't section of Rediquette: Complain about reposts. Just because you have seen it before doesn't mean everyone has. Votes indicate the popularity of a post, so just vote. Keep in mind that linking to previous posts is not automatically a complaint; it is information. Thank you for pointing it out though, even if it didn´t help anyone.

Dude, read the question in OP's picture again... It clearly states "Marty ate more pizza than Luis" and the only way for that to happen is that Marty's pizza was bigger to the point that 4/6 of his pizza was more than 5/6 of Luis' pizza.

Except the legislation existed already for smoking medical marijuana and was just updated to include vapes.

It'd be pretty douchy to smoke up at a kid's park or in a restaurant.

Edit: Okay downvote all you want, but if you read the article it says it's nothing new. It was added to the previous legislation because of the fact that ecigs were made illegal anywhere smoking is illegal, so this legislation exempted marijuana vapes from that law.

I believe it started as a troll and people were saying white and gold to mess with people. Then people started editing the picture and it got sent around so much, for some odd reason, that people are just all confused.